In a country governed by the rule of law, the independence of the press is a constitutional necessity. It is fundamental to the continued exercise, indeed the survival, of the liberties that we sometimes take for granted. This might sound like the opening of a self-interested piece of special pleading on behalf of the newspaper industry, but these are, in fact, the words of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge. In a speech last year, he set out his thoughts on the future of press regulation in the context of the Leveson Inquiry, which had just got under way at the time.

On Thursday, Lord Judge again emphasised the importance of a free press. He was, he said, a “passionate believer” in the rights of newspapers, which were an “essential ingredient” in British society. Lord Judge insisted that Lord Justice Leveson, whom he recommended to David Cameron to head the judicial inquiry into press ethics, shares that view. We worry that this is not the case.

Lord Judge recognises that to have the best of a free press it may also be necessary to accommodate the worst. To over-regulate the many in order to curb the excesses of a few is to risk losing everything. As he says: “An independent press will from time to time… behave if not criminally, with scandalous cruelty and unfairness, leaving victims stranded in a welter of public contempt and hatred or uncovenanted distress. But on the very same day, one or other of its constituent parts may reveal a public scandal. The first… should never happen… . The public value of the second is priceless.”

As Lord Justice Leveson puts the finishing touches to his report, he must keep these wise words at the forefront of his mind. There is a real danger that, because some newspapers allegedly behaved in a criminal manner, efforts will be made to reduce the whole press to an emasculated cipher of high-minded opinion. This is not to forget the circumstances under which the inquiry was established last summer. Journalists working for Rupert Murdoch’s News International titles were accused of systematically tapping into messages left on the mobile phones of politicians, celebrities and members of the Royal family. When the Guardian reported that the phone of Milly Dowler, the murdered schoolgirl, had been hacked and voicemails deleted, there was widespread shock. Mr Cameron, already embarrassed by the exposure of his own links to News International, ordered an inquiry.

Newspapers are not above the law – nor do they wish to be. It is widely accepted in the industry that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) needs to be reformed – more independent members should be recruited, it should have greater power of sanction, and contractual obligations should be placed upon newspapers. It is nevertheless essential that the press remains self-regulating. Yet on several occasions, Lord Justice Leveson has signalled that he believes the reformed regulatory body needs to be underpinned by statute, and it is apparent that this view is gaining currency in political circles. Earlier this week, Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, indicated that he would support “proportionate” state regulation of the press; and Labour leaders have also backed the idea. Since the Prime Minister is compromised by his personal connections to News International, it is hard to see how he will be able to resist imposing a statutory system if one is recommended in the Leveson report. It is not at all clear that he will want to.

Understandably, Lord Justice Leveson does not want his report to be consigned to the same dusty Whitehall shelf as have been past inquiries into the industry. But it would be worse were he to be responsible for the first quasi-state regulation of the press in 300 years. Once a regulatory measure, however well intentioned, is on the Statute Book, MPs will seek to define the public interest in law, and governments will be tempted to use the legislation to choke off dissent. Statutory bodies, once created, tend to grow and seek additional powers – they become bureaucracies. And it is no coincidence that countries with the highest levels of corruption have the most tightly regulated media. Britain can boast one of the least venal political systems in the world precisely because its press is not beholden to the state in any way, either through statute or, equally as bad, through subsidy. Those who regard statutory regulation as an acceptable quid pro quo for state financial help do not have the interests of a free press at heart. This includes pressure groups that talk blithely of public subventions for “high-quality” journalism, but that are in reality attempting to constrain the influence and reach of Right-of-centre and tabloid newspapers that have traditionally opposed Labour.

It should be noted that the most illuminating story of the conference season so far came not from a broadsheet investigation, nor from a TV interview, but from the disclosure in the Sun of Andrew Mitchell’s foul-mouthed rant at police officers guarding the gates of Downing Street. We are sleepwalking into a world in which such ostensibly demotic stories – which actually reveal deeper truths and spark useful national debates – will be officially frowned upon. The growing clamour for press regulation backed by statute threatens a priceless British freedom. A Conservative prime minister should have no part of it.